Maintenance Manuals



[email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
>>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
>>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
>>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.
>>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>>>>> who's bullshitting.
>>>> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>>> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
>>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>>>>> radial and lateral loads?
>>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry!
>>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
>>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
>>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
>>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>>>> squirm you want to add?
>>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
>>>>>> wow! that's rich!
>>>>> Maybe, but obviously true.
>>>> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.
>>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
>>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>>>>>> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
>>>>>> convincing too!
>>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
>>>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
>>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
>>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>>> held at the same angle.

>> Dear Spike
>>
>> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:
>>
>> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg
>>
>> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:
>>
>> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg
>>
>> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> fixed against the back of the blue plate.
>>
>> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.
>>
>> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
> Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.
>
> Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> taken.)
>
> Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> and thinner.
>
> So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> mistake.
>
> --
>
> Spike
>


admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words.

[and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in
photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at
that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!]
 
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to
>>>>>>> buckle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>>
>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>>>> fundamentally incorrect.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is
>>> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself.

>>
>> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer.
>> and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again....

>
> Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension or
> compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring.
>

eh? if the rim is compressively pre-loaded, and applied load compresses
it more, what type of load do /you/ think is going to cause yield? thermal?
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Dear Peter,
>>
>> Whatever you two are arguing about, the numbers on the Park tension
>> gauge read in increments of 5.
>> Though fuzzy, the inset shows the needle pointing to about 26, which
>> is the extreme high end of the Park table calibration for a round
>> steel 1.8 mm spoke, about 175 kgf, or ~385 pounds of tension.

>
> OK, thanks Carl.
>
> I have no doubt that spokes could be tensioned to 175kg,


ridiculous. that wasn't the case when you declared it "impossible".


> just that it's
> unlikely that Jobst's method would get you there -- for all the reasons
> I previously mentioned.


hypocritical bullshitter.
 
Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" - Bicycle wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote:
>
>
>> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and
>> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack
>> at spoke eyelets.

>
>
> If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH,
> using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids
> this problem in most cases.
>
> <boilerplate blather snipped>
>
>
>> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in
>> itself.

>
> With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until
> they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should
> we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation?
>
>
>> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because
>> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned.

>
> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
> makers recommendations.
>
> <remainder snipped>


What part of making the rim stronger in resistance to buckling than
needed (for the maximum spoke tension the spoke bed can sustain) being a
waste of materials (and therefore making an unnecessarily heavy rim for
the strength of the wheel) do you not understand?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Chalo Colina writes:
>
>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to
>>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions
>>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed
>>>> rim.

>
>>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using
>>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly
>>> designed"?

>
>> I think what Peter's trying to say is that a rim's design should
>> balance the ability of the rim to take overall loads, like hoop
>> compression, with the ability to support the local loads of
>> individual spokes.

>
>> If the rim buckles long before the spoke holes have reached a
>> problematic level of stress, then it is heavier than it needs to be
>> for its wheel's load carrying capacity. It has more spoke bed or
>> eyelet material than its structural section can use. If, on the
>> other hand, the spoke holes crack long before the rim's buckling
>> strength is reached, then it's also heavier than its load capacity
>> should require. That is, the load capacity of such a wheel is
>> limited by its spoke tension, but the rim section should be able to
>> support higher loads.

>
>> Many of us prefer the error to fall on the side of the eyelets
>> supporting more tension than the rim section can support, because it
>> allows us to find that optimal tension during the build process.

>
>> The prescriptive approach, where all the rims from a given
>> manufacturer carry the same spoke tension rating, is a copout. Rims
>> of substantially different sectional sizes and weights should and do
>> support different spoke tensions.

>
> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and
> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack
> at spoke eyelets. Spoke eyelets are there to make a usable friction
> interface between aluminum rim and spoke nipple and are not suitable
> for spoke load distribution.


eh? rims don't crack at the manufacturer defined spoke tension, only at
jobstian non-numerically defined spoke tension "as high as the rim can
bear". [the non-numerical engineer - novel concept.]


> Someone got the idea that sockets
> formerly used by all durable rims to distribute load to the inner and
> outer bed of rims was superfluous. That is where the error occurred.


eh? so why do so many rims still have sockets then? mavic, ambrosio,
d.t., etc.


>
> I have more stacks of socketed rims (Fiamme, Ambrosio, Mavic, Super
> Champion, and others), ridden until the sidewalls wore out, that were
> spoked as tight as I have described in "the Bicycle Wheel" with no
> cracks. To deny that rims that cannot support local spoke loads are
> being offered is masochism. It reminds me of all the claims that jam
> nut on Presta stems are causing inner tube stem separation failures on
> Presta stems. That was a manufacturing error that went away as bad
> stock was depleted and was not the user's fault. Cracked rims are
> likewise a design (manufacturing) error.
>
> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in
> itself.


not it's not!!! it's done because of /you/ jobst. /your/ bad advice is
what makes people go mess up their rims with excess spoke tension.
specifying the max permissible spoke tension is the only way to avoid
this incompetence.


> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because
> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned.


rubbish. unless you mean that they don't remain true once the socket
have been pulled through the rim.

> That was the limit
> that any wheel builder had in his grasp without a lookup table, that
> tension being dependent on the number of spokes between 28 and 40,
> typically MA-2 and Monthlery Mavic rims coming in many drillings.


blah, blah. can't buy them any more. get with reality and correct your
advice. if you understood the theory correctly, you wouldn't have this
problem or be costing consumers and the industry countless dollars each
year.

otoh, we wouldn't have high quality, reliable, true, strong, pre-built
wheels if it wasn't for you, so life after jobst is not /all/ bad.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ben C? writes:
>
>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to
>>>>> buckle. If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions
>>>>> because the spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed
>>>>> rim.

>
>>>> If a given rim does not commonly fail by buckling when built using
>>>> the rim makers recommended spoke tension is the rim "badly
>>>> designed"?

>
>>>> Please note that I *am not* defending Mavic or any other rim maker
>>>> - it's just a question.

>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "commonly failing". I guess it's
>>> fair to say most rims don't commonly fail that way, except when you
>>> land a hard jump or something like that which loads them radially &
>>> laterally at the same time. What I mean by badly designed is that
>>> the wheel isn't as strong for its weight as it could be. Where
>>> strength would be its resistance to buckle under load.

>
>> But doesn't a stiffer rim also improve buckle-resistance? So it
>> isn't clear to me whether you necessarily get superior
>> buckle-resistance from a 36H MA-2 with high spoke tension or from a
>> 32H CXP-33 with lower tension.

>
> The goal is not buckling resistance, but rather sufficiently high
> spoke tension for the wheel to support loads (such as impact from road
> irregularities). That tension limit should lie just below the
> buckling tension and was generally adequate for example to prevent
> spoke rattle over typical cobble streets. Today, many rims begin to
> crack from local stress at spoke holes far below that tension because
> the force is not adequately distributed.
>
> In the days of yore, inexpensive rims used flat washers to distribute
> spoke loads, sockets being too expensive, requiring a special machine.
> To make up for the lower cost, aligning washers with spoke holes when
> lacing a wheel was tedious work for wheel builders.


he said, desperately trying to dance the tightrope of not back-tracking
on non-numerical jobstian spoke tightness, while leaving the door wide
open for the actually appropriate tension as defined by the rim
manufacturer. all without actually /saying/ it of course...
 
Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>> all this ******** about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension
>> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use. there
>> is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no "increase"
>> in wheel strength].

>
> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense
> of breaking stress.
>
> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not?


michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing tension
increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had
spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel.
 
On Oct 6, 10:06 pm, Tom Sherman "underpaid and underlaid" wrote:
> Ozark - 100% Service and 0% "Attitude" - Bicycle wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 8:28 pm, jobst.brandt, the great and mighty, wrote:

>
> >> That many rims today are a poor balance of cross section and
> >> durability, when reasonably tensioned, is apparent by many that crack
> >> at spoke eyelets.

>
> > If one follows some of your "methods", that much is surely true. OTOH,
> > using a tensionmeter and following the makers recommendations avoids
> > this problem in most cases.

>
> > <boilerplate blather snipped>

>
> >> That a specification for maximum spoke tension is offered is odd in
> >> itself.

>
> > With all due respect, that's horse pucky. Shall we inflate tires until
> > they blow off the rim and just go 5 psi lower the next time? Or should
> > we at least look at the makers recommendations for max inflation?

>
> >> Formerly, with socketed rims that took care of itself because
> >> the wheel would not remain true if over tensioned.

>
> > And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
> > they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
> > symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
> > to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
> > makers recommendations.

>
> > <remainder snipped>

>
> What part of making the rim stronger in resistance to buckling than
> needed (for the maximum spoke tension the spoke bed can sustain) being a
> waste of materials (and therefore making an unnecessarily heavy rim for
> the strength of the wheel) do you not understand?
>


How many 700c wheels have you actually built, Tommy?
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> spoke tension only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going
>> slack in use. there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and
>> certainly no "increase" in wheel strength].

>
> Finally, an actual statement!


er, you don't read my posts much, do you.


>
> OK, what's "in use", quantitatively?


er, you know, riding and stuff.


>
> Why shouldn't spokes go slack in use?


er, because the spoke nipples unscrew and the elbows fatigue. other
than that, you can ride a slack spoked wheel perfectly well.


>
> If a Mavic "classic" rim has a tension spec of 70-90kg right side,
> what's the left?


geometry. consult damon rinard's spoke calculator if you can't do the
math yourself. "engineer".


> How much tension remains when a 100kg rider hits a
> sharp bump?


ah, the peter cole non-math approach!!! just like non-defined "impact"!!!

come on peter, as an "engineer" you should be able to figure this out
yourself - if you wan tto define "sharp" that is.

> How about with a lateral load, like crossing a wheel on a
> jump, or twisting in a hole?


tell you what. /you/ go ahead and replicate all the research rim
manufacturers have done ahead of you, then report your results. me,
i''m just going to sit on my fat ass, use the manufacturers #'s and let
/you/ do some work for a change.


> Do wheels never buckle in use?


do they "ever" buckle in use? yes they do, especially when the spokes
are jobst-tight.

> Never seen
> one?


er, no, i've been blind each time it's happened to me.

> Why do reduced spoke count wheels have much higher spoke tensions?


er, they don't. you check facts, right?

> You're up, don't choke.


backatcha. see above.
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle
>>>>>>>> under load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater
>>>>>>>> resistance to buckle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential
>>>>>>> compressive force on the rim increases, the closer the rim
>>>>>>> approaches yield.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>>>
>>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're
>>>>> still fundamentally incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle" is
>>>> unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself.
>>>
>>> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer.
>>> and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again....

>>
>> Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension
>> or compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring.
>>

> eh? if the rim is compressively pre-loaded, and applied load compresses
> it more, what type of load do /you/ think is going to cause yield?
> thermal?


How will the rim yield is the question. It is possible to apply loads to
the rim that would cause yield in modes other than buckling.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle
>>>>>>>>> under load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater
>>>>>>>>> resistance to buckle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential
>>>>>>>> compressive force on the rim increases, the closer the rim
>>>>>>>> approaches yield.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're
>>>>>> still fundamentally incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for that (obviously unnecessary) spelling lesson. "Buckle"
>>>>> is unambiguous, "yield" is not. Try explaining yourself.
>>>>
>>>> eh? dude, if "yield" is "ambiguous" to you, you're not an engineer.
>>>> and don't even /think/ of bullshitting that again....
>>>
>>> Dude, "yielding of the rim" is ambiguous, unless you specify tension
>>> or compression, and along what axis the yield is occurring.
>>>

>> eh? if the rim is compressively pre-loaded, and applied load
>> compresses it more, what type of load do /you/ think is going to cause
>> yield? thermal?

>
> How will the rim yield is the question. It is possible to apply loads to
> the rim that would cause yield in modes other than buckling.
>

of course. flat-spotting is particularly prevalent in shallow rims like
ma2's. /both/ yield modes are exacerbated by excess rim compression.
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> all this ******** about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension
>>> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use.
>>> there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no
>>> "increase" in wheel strength].

>>
>> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense
>> of breaking stress.
>>
>> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not?

>
> michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing tension
> increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had
> spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel.


Did you borrow it from Jobst, or was Jobst the builder of the wheel?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:

>
> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.

>
> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.

>
> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?

>
> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.

>
> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> >> >> > who's bullshitting.

>
> >> >> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/

>
> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.

>
> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.

>
> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.

>
> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.

>
> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.

>
> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?

>
> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry!

>
> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.

>
> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]

>
> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.

>
> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
> >> >> squirm you want to add?

>
> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.

>
> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!

>
> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.

>
> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.

>
> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.

>
> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> >> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
> >> >> >> convincing too!

>
> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?

>
> >> >> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

>
> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"

>
> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
> >> >held at the same angle.

>
> >> Dear Spike

>
> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>
> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>
> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:

>
> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>
> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>
> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>
> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>
> >> Cheers,

>
> >> Carl Fogel

>
> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>
> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> >taken.)

>
> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> >and thinner.

>
> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> >mistake.

>
> Dear Spike,
>
> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>
> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
> screw not being visible.
>
> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
> yours.
>
> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>
> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>
> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.


It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.
--
Spike
 
On Oct 6, 10:56 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And modern rims are more resistant to this type of deformation (and
> they are also more resistant to buckling in actual use), so the
> symptoms of overtensioning have changed from the rim going out of true
> to the spoke bed cracking. BFD, use a tensionmeter and stick to the
> makers recommendations.


FWIW, I don't think a person everyone who builds his own wheels should
have to spend $60 or more on a tension gage.

And given the two indications of overtensioning (rim going temporarily
out of true, vs. spoke bed cracking) I certainly prefer the one that
doesn't destroy the rim.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> all this ******** about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke tension
>>>> only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack in use.
>>>> there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and certainly no
>>>> "increase" in wheel strength].
>>>
>>> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense
>>> of breaking stress.
>>>
>>> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not?

>>
>> michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing
>> tension increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had
>> spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel.

>
> Did you borrow it from Jobst, or was Jobst the builder of the wheel?
>

no, /i/ built it according to the jobstian tensioning method - "as high
as the rim can bear", exactly per "the book".

is that the "blame the builder" hook you were looking for? because if
so, what would make that experience unique to me? use of a tensiometer
and adherence to manufacturer spoke tension spec avoids this problem
entirely.
 
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:47:41 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.

>>
>> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.

>>
>> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?

>>
>> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.

>>
>> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> >> > who's bullshitting.

>>
>> >> >> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/

>>
>> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.

>>
>> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.

>>
>> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.

>>
>> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.

>>
>> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.

>>
>> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?

>>
>> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry!

>>
>> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.

>>
>> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]

>>
>> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.

>>
>> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>> >> >> squirm you want to add?

>>
>> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.

>>
>> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!

>>
>> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.

>>
>> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.

>>
>> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.

>>
>> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
>> >> >> >> convincing too!

>>
>> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?

>>
>> >> >> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

>>
>> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"

>>
>> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>> >> >held at the same angle.

>>
>> >> Dear Spike

>>
>> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>>
>> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>>
>> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes vsible:

>>
>> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>>
>> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>>
>> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>>
>> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>>
>> >> Cheers,

>>
>> >> Carl Fogel

>>
>> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>>
>> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>> >taken.)

>>
>> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>> >and thinner.

>>
>> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>> >mistake.

>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>> screw not being visible.
>>
>> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>> yours.
>>
>> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>
>> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>
>> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
>>Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

>
>It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam was up
>to his regular fraud again. What supported this observation was his
>past history of obvious and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led
>you to believe that this observation was grounded solely in the
>possible similarities and differences of our respective Park Tool TM-1
>Tentiometers. I meant only to suggest this as one possible method that
>he used to accomplish his deception. I should have been clearer. This
>was a error on my part; I am not embarrassed by it.


Dear Spike,

You've lost most of your credibility.

Stop digging.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>>>> On 2007-10-06, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> all this ******** about "too weak" is an utter crock. spoke
>>>>> tension only needs to be sufficient to prevent spokes going slack
>>>>> in use. there is ZERO benefit to increasing it above that [and
>>>>> certainly no "increase" in wheel strength].
>>>>
>>>> I think I understand OK why it doesn't increase strength, in the sense
>>>> of breaking stress.
>>>>
>>>> But does it increase resistance to buckling or not? If not, why not?
>>>
>>> michael press seems to have the best handle on this. increasing
>>> tension increases propensity to buckle. the only wheel i've ever had
>>> spontaneously taco on me was a jobst-tight wheel.

>>
>> Did you borrow it from Jobst, or was Jobst the builder of the wheel?
>>

> no, /i/ built it according to the jobstian tensioning method - "as high
> as the rim can bear", exactly per "the book".
>
> is that the "blame the builder" hook you were looking for?...


No, not at all. I was fishing in entirely different waters.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:

>
> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.

>
> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.

>
> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?

>
> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.

>
> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> >> >> > who's bullshitting.

>
> >> >> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/

>
> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.

>
> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.

>
> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.

>
> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.

>
> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.

>
> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?

>
> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry!

>
> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.

>
> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]

>
> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.

>
> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
> >> >> squirm you want to add?

>
> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.

>
> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!

>
> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.

>
> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.

>
> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.

>
> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >> >> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
> >> >> >> convincing too!

>
> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?

>
> >> >> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

>
> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"

>
> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
> >> >held at the same angle.

>
> >> Dear Spike

>
> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>
> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>
> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:

>
> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>
> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>
> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>
> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>
> >> Cheers,

>
> >> Carl Fogel

>
> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>
> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> >taken.)

>
> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> >and thinner.

>
> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> >mistake.

>
> Dear Spike,
>
> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>
> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
> screw not being visible.
>
> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
> yours.
>
> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>
> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>
> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Carl,

It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might
be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What
supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious
and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding
further on their possible differences.

I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one
possible method by which such a deception could be produced --
certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been
clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not
embarrassed by it.
--
Spike
 
On Oct 6, 10:04 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>>>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
> >>>>>>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
> >>>>>>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
> >>>>>>>> 175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
> >>>>>>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
> >>>>>>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.
> >>>>>>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
> >>>>>>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
> >>>>>>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.
> >>>>>> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
> >>>>>> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
> >>>>>> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
> >>>>>> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?
> >>>>>> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.
> >>>>> The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
> >>>>> who's bullshitting.
> >>>> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/
> >>>>>>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
> >>>>>>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.
> >>>>>> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
> >>>>>> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.
> >>>>> If you mean buckle, say buckle.
> >>>> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
> >>>> fundamentally incorrect.
> >>>>>> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
> >>>>>> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.
> >>>>> An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
> >>>>> question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
> >>>>> of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
> >>>>> radial and lateral loads?
> >>>> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
> >>>> bullshitting? terribly sorry!
> >>>>>>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
> >>>>>>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.
> >>>>>> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
> >>>>>> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
> >>>>>> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
> >>>>>> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]
> >>>>> I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.
> >>>> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
> >>>> squirm you want to add?
> >>>>>>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.
> >>>>>> wow! that's rich!
> >>>>> Maybe, but obviously true.
> >>>> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.
> >>>>>>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.
> >>>>>> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
> >>>>>> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
> >>>>>> convincing too!
> >>>>> You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
> >>>>> necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?
> >>>> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!
> >>> Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
> >>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"
> >>> Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
> >>> spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
> >>> about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
> >>> don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
> >>> held at the same angle.
> >> Dear Spike

>
> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>
> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>
> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:

>
> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>
> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>
> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>
> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>
> >> Cheers,

>
> >> Carl Fogel

>
> > Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>
> > Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
> > properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
> > production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
> > and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
> > end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
> > taken.)

>
> > Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
> > is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
> > spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
> > readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
> > spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
> > want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
> > picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
> > other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
> > spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
> > and thinner.

>
> > So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
> > I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
> > given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
> > mistake.

>
> > --

>
> > Spike

>
> admit it spike, you just don't like me. say the words.
>
> [and no, i did not fudge the calibration - i drew the while pic in
> photoshop instead. took ma about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at
> that stuff. i don't even own a tensiometer. saved me $60!]


Beam: "i drew the while (sic) pic in photoshop instead. took ma
(sic?) about 5 minutes because i'm brilliant at that stuff."

Sounds like you are sarcastically admitting to the impossible in order
to divert attention from the actual.
 
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:36:55 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On Oct 6, 9:30 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 17:25:43 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >On Oct 6, 5:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:28:20 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 6, 12:26 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:
>> >> >> > jim beam wrote:
>> >> >> >> Peter Cole wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >>> Jobst's method says to increase spoke tension uniformly until the
>> >> >> >>> stress relief operation causes the rim to just begin to buckle, then
>> >> >> >>> back of 1/2 turn on all nipples. If, after that, your tension was
>> >> >> >>> >175kg, you must have tensioned your spokes to ~210kg. At that
>> >> >> >>> tension, the stress relief operation could easily exceed 300kg --
>> >> >> >>> well past the UTS of the spokes you claim to have used.

>>
>> >> >> >>> You couldn't have followed the instructions. You also used the method
>> >> >> >>> on MTB wheels, which he explicitly excluded. You obviously didn't
>> >> >> >>> read the book, which makes your claims more than suspect.

>>
>> >> >> >> i give you the numbers i obtained, as per "the book" on a modern rim.
>> >> >> >> you don't like the answer because it contradicts your ill-considered
>> >> >> >> opinion. what next. allege that i'm lying? say that i didn't use
>> >> >> >> the spoke key correctly? say that it's a factor of humidity?

>>
>> >> >> >> you're bullshitting peter. grow up.

>>
>> >> >> > The numbers you gave are impossible. I'll leave it to others to decide
>> >> >> > who's bullshitting.

>>
>> >> >> deny this, *****.http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/

>>
>> >> >> >>> Rim strength is straightforward, rims fail when they buckle under
>> >> >> >>> load. The greater the spoke tension, the greater resistance to buckle.

>>
>> >> >> >> fundamentally massively incorrect. as circumferential compressive
>> >> >> >> force on the rim increases, the closer the rim approaches yield.

>>
>> >> >> > If you mean buckle, say buckle.

>>
>> >> >> er, "yield" is spelled y-i-e-l-d, not b-u-c-k-l-e. and you're still
>> >> >> fundamentally incorrect.

>>
>> >> >> >> to put it another way, if the rim is pre-stressed to 99.9% of
>> >> >> >> compressive yield, how much more external load can it take??? duh.

>>
>> >> >> > An additional 0.1% compression, obviously. But that's not the right
>> >> >> > question to ask. The right question is: if the rim is compressed to 90%
>> >> >> > of the wheel buckle limit, what's it's ability to support simultaneous
>> >> >> > radial and lateral loads?

>>
>> >> >> oh, i'm sorry, am i not supposed to ask questions that show how you're
>> >> >> bullshitting? terribly sorry!

>>
>> >> >> >>> If a lightweight rim can't handle those spoke tensions because the
>> >> >> >>> spoke beds fail from fatigue, it's a badly designed rim.

>>
>> >> >> >> er, like any engineering solution, there is compromise. sure, you can
>> >> >> >> make the rim heavier, but taken to extreme, who wants a 15kg rim?
>> >> >> >> [and that would affect stiffness and approach the infinitely stiff rim
>> >> >> >> concept you seem to be having such a problem with.]

>>
>> >> >> > I said "lightweight" above. Nobody is interested in heavy rims.

>>
>> >> >> how about color. does color matter you too peter? any more wriggle and
>> >> >> squirm you want to add?

>>
>> >> >> >>> You don't get this because you don't understand rim/spoke mechanics.

>>
>> >> >> >> wow! that's rich!

>>
>> >> >> > Maybe, but obviously true.

>>
>> >> >> you are a shameless bullshitting *****.

>>
>> >> >> >>> Get help with the Tourette's, you're scaring the children.

>>
>> >> >> >> ah, the peter cole solution! the wheels fell off his "engineering"
>> >> >> >> ******** cart, so he resorted to being a *****! nice one. really
>> >> >> >> convincing too!

>>
>> >> >> > You introduced this language to this forum, nobody else finds it
>> >> >> > necessary. It adds nothing and drives people away. Is that you goal?

>>
>> >> >> ********'s ok, but calling a spade a spade is not? what a *****!

>>
>> >> >Jim beam wrote: "deny this, *****.
>> >> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/1498602218/"

>>
>> >> >Deny this you pathetic little fraud:. You tightened down the tension
>> >> >spring adjustment screw of your Park Tool TM-1 Tensiometer to give
>> >> >about double actual values. In your above linked flickr picture, I
>> >> >don't see the end of the adjustment screw as I do with my TM-1 when
>> >> >held at the same angle.

>>
>> >> Dear Spike

>>
>> >> No threaded adjuster screw is visible on my Park gauge at that angle,
>> >> just the end of the spring that it pushes against:

>>
>> >> http://i22.tinypic.com/qq4l1y.jpg

>>
>> >> Tip the gauge up a little, and the adjuster screw becomes visible:

>>
>> >> http://i21.tinypic.com/nvvqd.jpg

>>
>> >> Squeezing the gauge to use it does not affect the adjuster, which is
>> >> fixed against the back of the blue plate.

>>
>> >> Unlike my adjuster screw, yours may have been unscrewed far enough
>> >> when the factory calibrated it to become visible.

>>
>> >> But I'm not accusing you of untightening your adjuster screw. I assume
>> >> that you just made an understandable mistake and leapt to an
>> >> embarrassingly ugly conclusion.

>>
>> >> Cheers,

>>
>> >> Carl Fogel

>>
>> >Thank you for your good clarifying pictures, Carl.

>>
>> >Both the adjustment screw and the spring end are visible on my
>> >properly adjusted Park TM-l. However, I believe I may have an early
>> >production model and the screw length was longer than actually needed
>> >and so was shortened in subsequent production. (Both it and the spring
>> >end are somewhat easy to catch on spokes when a measurement is
>> >taken.)

>>
>> >Importantly, you are indeed correct that the spring end is visible. It
>> >is at all scale readings. And likewise, it is not visible if the
>> >spring adjustment screw has advanced it so far so as to produce
>> >readings that are roughly double actual tension. And, behold, the
>> >spring end is not visible in beam's flickr picture. One or two may
>> >want to say that the thick and out of focus wheel nipple in the
>> >picture is the the spring end. But it's not; it looks the same as the
>> >other background wheel nipples and is in line with its corresponding
>> >spoke. The spring end, if it were visible, would be in better focus
>> >and thinner.

>>
>> >So, I don't believe I did make a mistake. Like most people, when I do,
>> >I acknowledge it and am not particularly embarrassed. And after all,
>> >given jim beam's mendacity, it certainly would have been an honest
>> >mistake.

>>
>> Dear Spike,
>>
>> Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.
>>
>> You're now claiming that you have a different model or a different
>> adjustment, so that excuses your earlier mistake about the adjustment
>> screw not being visible.
>>
>> Yet you insist again, without any evidence, that what you can't see on
>> Jim Beam's model must be like your model and must be adjusted like
>> yours.
>>
>> The purpose of the adjuster is to let the factory calibrate the tool.
>>
>> Why not accuse the Park company of selling Jim Beam a badly adjusted
>> tension gauge? You have just as much evidence, but you don't have the
>> same obvious and repeatedly stated motive.
>>
>> You're showing more of the bad judgement that got you into this hole.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel

>
>Carl,
>
>It was not an argument but rather an observation that jim beam might
>be up to his regular fraud again. I asked that he deny it. What
>supported this observation and request was his past history of obvious
>and repeated mendacity. I am sorry if I led you to believe that my
>observation was solely grounded on the similarities and differences of
>our respective Park Tool TM-1 Tentiometers. Thank you for expounding
>further on their possible differences.
>
>I meant to suggest that "jimmying" of the spring tension was only one
>possible method by which such a deception could be produced --
>certainly this is what could have been done. I should have been
>clearer and more expansive. This was a error on my part; I am not
>embarrassed by it.


Dear Spike,

You should be embarrassed by your wild claim, obviously based on your
hatred of Jim Beam.

You've lost most of your credibility.

Quit digging, particularly by posting identical replies.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 

Similar threads

T
Replies
2
Views
274
J